Rose v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rose v. State

871 So. 2d 1044, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 6440, 2004 WL 1057809

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 7, 2004

DocketNo. 5D04-716

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 871 So. 2d 1044 (Rose v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rose v. State, 871 So. 2d 1044, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 6440, 2004 WL 1057809 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PLEUS, J.

Defendant, Arnold J. Rose, Jr., appeals the summary denial of his rule 3.800(a) motion seeking additional jail time credit. The trial court denied the motion as successive, but failed to attach defendant’s prior motion or the prior order to establish that the same issue was previously raised and rejected.

We nevertheless affirm the trial court’s order, because the motion is facially insufficient. We do so without prejudice to the defendant to file a motion which alleges that the record shows on its face his entitlement to additional credit and states the relevant dates to support his claim. Should the trial court again deny the motion as successive, the court must attach copies of the prior motion and order. See McAllister v. State, 840 So.2d 1163 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).

AFFIRMED without prejudice.

SAWAYA, C.J., and TORPY, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI